rowuk wrote:

Amir, I question your statement. There are so many senses (visual, aural, touch, smell). These senses can be fooled very easily.We do not need audio playback for anything except our own personal pleasure. I insist that there is no way to measure personal pleasure. When we want to develop our senses, there are no set ways to attack this. Sometimes a great cognac or cigar can alter our mood and we perceive a deeper level of appreciation for a book, a snack, or a live concert. The ability to appreciate MUSIC is the beginning of road to better aural awareness. Knowing Haydns intentions is significant to developing taste for that music, its performance and perhaps the recording process. Limitations in the quality of a concert hall, recording quality, analog or digital medium do not affect the appreciation of fine music. If we allow ourselves to get distracted, then the music was not important enough. I maintain that audiophoolery tries to convince us that there are hardware solutions for sound quality. I disagree. Hardware solutions only feed our egos.

rowuk wrote:

I maintain that audiophoolery tries to convince us that there are hardware solutions for sound quality. I disagree. Hardware solutions only feed our egos.

For sure, not everyone consciously guides along and shapes their overall sound with the hardware they choose, and there are many variations of the “guiding” to talk about among the people who do guide their sound development. I would like to say that current “high end” sound is as generally bad as it is because it was guided there by Morons, but this would only be a partial explanation of what’s going on here.  For one thing, it appears to me that guiding sound from the beginning to the end of a system is not common whether it’s a cheap or an expensive system. And, although the music chosen to evaluate components tells a lot about the “system owner”, it’s often hard to be sure we are “listening for the same things” when we listen to “the same music”, including through the same system. This is why shaping audio is ultimately a personal thing, even when there are attempts to “brand” components or build fraternities around them. Yes, people/companies can reproduce components that sound close enough one to the other to where they can be chosen for their sound. But once a component gets plugged into a particular system in a particular room, and the music changes, it gets personal again. And it can be “argued” that this is one reason why demonstrations at hi-fi shows are rarely any good. Of course, another reason is the stupid “music”, invariably pan pipe, that sort of thing, that is used by “manufacturers” to “prove” their ideas. You have to be pre-hypnotized, going in, to buy stuff like this! In general, hi-fi components are designed based on "specs" rather than targeted sound. But this shouldn't interfere with component selection any more than sound targeted by someone else should encourage selection. Either way, it's gotta be personal!

Paul S

> >